1. With respect to a traffic accident listed in the attached Form 1, insurance money of the plaintiff against the defendant based on the insurance contract listed in the attached Form 2.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract with respect to E-car owned by D and D with the same content as the attached Table 2.

B. The Defendant, who was on the backward seat of the F driver G string G car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) with a traffic accident listed in the annexed Form 1 (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”), was diagnosed as “cluoral and cluoral base, high-water cluoral base, and the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle” (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,236,710 to the Defendant’s medical expenses from May 2, 2012 to May 30, 2012.

On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to file a complaint with the Defendant on July 2, 2012, stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay 3.8 million won to the Defendant for all legal compensation except for the direct non-payment expenses on the part of the Defendant, and the Defendant shall not file a civil or criminal lawsuit or objection against the Plaintiff and D in the future.”

On August 5, 2012, the Defendant was diagnosed of “the instant symptoms” (hereinafter referred to as “instant symptoms”) in the rehabilitation medical department at Yong-Namnam University Hospital Hospital’s rehabilitation department.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1-5 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that there is no proximate causal relationship between the instant accident and the symptoms of this case and sought confirmation of the absence of the obligation to pay the damages.

In response, the defendant asserts that the symptoms of this case occurred due to the accident of this case, and sought compensation for damages suffered by the defendant, such as medical expenses for the symptoms of this case.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, the debtor, first, claims specified to deny the fact of the occurrence of the obligation, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts of the legal relationship.